Do we (need to) care about canopy radiation schemes in DGVMs? Caveats and potential impacts

Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) are an essential part of current state-of-the-art Earth system mod- els. In recent years, the complexity of DGVMs has increased by incorporating new important processes like, e.g., nutrient cycling and land cover dynamics, while biogeophysical pro- cesses like surface radiation have not been developed much further. Canopy radiation models are however very important for the estimation of absorption and reflected fluxes and are essential for a proper estimation of surface carbon, energy and water fluxes. The present study provides an overview of current imple- mentations of canopy radiation schemes in a couple of state- of-the-art DGVMs and assesses their accuracy in simulating canopy absorption and reflection for a variety of different sur- face conditions. Systematic deviations in surface albedo and fractions of absorbed photosynthetic active radiation (faPAR) are identified and potential impacts are assessed. The results show clear deviations for both, absorbed and reflected, surface solar radiation fluxes. FaPAR is typically underestimated, which results in an underestimation of gross primary productivity (GPP) for the investigated cases. The deviation can be as large as 25 % in extreme cases. Devia- tions in surface albedo range between 0.15 1 0.36, with a slight positive bias on the order of 1 0.04. Poten- tial radiative forcing caused by albedo deviations is estimated at 1.25 RF 0.8 (W m 2 ), caused by neglect of the di- urnal cycle of surface albedo. The present study is the first one that provides an as- sessment of canopy RT schemes in different currently used DGVMs together with an assessment of the potential impact of the identified deviations. The paper illustrates that there is a general need to improve the canopy radiation schemes in DGVMs and provides different perspectives for their im- provement.

[1]  Philippe Ciais,et al.  A framework for benchmarking land models , 2012 .

[2]  T. Lenton,et al.  The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options , 2009 .

[3]  Jean-Philippe Gastellu-Etchegorry,et al.  DART: a 3D model for simulating satellite images and studying surface radiation budget , 2004 .

[4]  R. Schnur,et al.  Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C , 2006 .

[5]  T. Feldpausch,et al.  Co-limitation of photosynthetic capacity by nitrogen and phosphorus in West Africa woodlands. , 2010, Plant, cell & environment.

[6]  J. Lovell,et al.  The Canopy Semi-analytic Pgap And Radiative Transfer (CanSPART) model: Formulation and application , 2012 .

[7]  A. Pitman,et al.  Evaluating the Performance of Land Surface Models , 2008 .

[8]  Hideki Kobayashi,et al.  A coupled 1-D atmosphere and 3-D canopy radiative transfer model for canopy reflectance, light environment, and photosynthesis simulation in a heterogeneous landscape , 2008 .

[9]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere‐biosphere system , 2005 .

[10]  Victor Brovkin,et al.  Global biogeophysical interactions between forest and climate , 2009 .

[11]  S. V. Caemmerer,et al.  Biochemical models of leaf photosynthesis. , 2000 .

[12]  Andrew D. Friend,et al.  Carbon and nitrogen cycle dynamics in the O‐CN land surface model: 1. Model description, site‐scale evaluation, and sensitivity to parameter estimates , 2010 .

[13]  Jean-Philippe Gastellu-Etchegorry,et al.  A canopy radiative transfer scheme with explicit FAPAR for the interactive vegetation model ISBA‐A‐gs: Impact on carbon fluxes , 2013 .

[14]  Edwin W. Pak,et al.  An extended AVHRR 8‐km NDVI dataset compatible with MODIS and SPOT vegetation NDVI data , 2005 .

[15]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate‐carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) , 2008 .

[16]  Jens Kattge,et al.  Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century? , 2007 .

[17]  A. Strahler,et al.  Geometric-Optical Bidirectional Reflectance Modeling of a Conifer Forest Canopy , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[18]  T. Painter,et al.  Reflectance quantities in optical remote sensing - definitions and case studies , 2006 .

[19]  Sandy P. Harrison,et al.  Ecophysiological and bioclimatic foundations for a global plant functional classification , 2010 .

[20]  J. Dutoit The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , 2007 .

[21]  C.J.T. Spitters,et al.  Separating the diffuse and direct component of global radiation and its implications for modeling canopy photosynthesis Part II. Calculation of canopy photosynthesis , 1986 .

[22]  William B. Rossow,et al.  Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP data sets: 2. Validation and first results , 1995 .

[23]  Pete Smith,et al.  Integrating plant–soil interactions into global carbon cycle models , 2009 .

[24]  Niklaus E. Zimmermann,et al.  Plant functional type mapping for earth system models , 2011 .

[25]  Peng Gong,et al.  Modeling radiation and photosynthesis of a heterogeneous savanna woodland landscape with a hierarchy of model complexities , 2007 .

[26]  P. Cox,et al.  The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics , 2011 .

[27]  Yves M. Govaerts,et al.  Towards Multidecadal Consistent Meteosat Surface Albedo Time Series , 2010, Remote. Sens..

[28]  V. Brovkin,et al.  The effect of a dynamic background albedo scheme on Sahel/Sahara precipitation during the mid-Holocene , 2010 .

[29]  M. Claussen,et al.  Radiative forcing from anthropogenic land cover change since A.D. 800 , 2009 .

[30]  S. Bony,et al.  Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5 , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[31]  Tobias Stacke,et al.  Impact of the soil hydrology scheme on simulated soil moisture memory , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[32]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Site-specific global warming potentials of biogenic CO2 for bioenergy: contributions from carbon fluxes and albedo dynamics , 2012 .

[33]  Ian J. Wright,et al.  Impacts of trait variation through observed trait–climate relationships on performance of an Earth system model: a conceptual analysis , 2012 .

[34]  Nadine Gobron,et al.  Horizontal radiation transport in 3-D forest canopies at multiple spatial resolutions: Simulated impact on canopy absorption , 2006 .

[35]  A. Hall,et al.  Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change , 2006 .

[36]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research , 2007 .

[37]  N. Kiang,et al.  A clumped-foliage canopy radiative transfer model for a global dynamic terrestrial ecosystem model. I: Theory , 2010 .

[38]  P. Cox,et al.  Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink , 2009, Nature.

[39]  R. Dickinson,et al.  A three‐dimensional analytic model for the scattering of a spherical bush , 2008 .

[40]  Peter M. Cox,et al.  Description of the "TRIFFID" Dynamic Global Vegetation Model , 2001 .

[41]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective , 2007 .

[42]  R. Dickinson,et al.  Simplifying the Interaction of Land Surfaces with Radiation for Relating Remote Sensing Products to Climate Models , 2006 .

[43]  Alexander Loew,et al.  Robust identification of global greening phase patterns from remote sensing vegetation products , 2012 .

[44]  P. Cox,et al.  The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes , 2011 .

[45]  Charles Doutriaux,et al.  Performance metrics for climate models , 2008 .

[46]  Jean-Luc Widlowski,et al.  On the bias of instantaneous FAPAR estimates in open-canopy forests. , 2010 .

[47]  F. Woodward,et al.  Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate , 2010, Science.

[48]  T. Sharkey,et al.  Fitting photosynthetic carbon dioxide response curves for C(3) leaves. , 2007, Plant, cell & environment.

[49]  R. Fernandes,et al.  An assessment of needles clumping within shoots when modeling radiative transfer within homogeneous canopies , 2006 .

[50]  Alan H. Strahler,et al.  An analytical hybrid GORT model for bidirectional reflectance over discontinuous plant canopies , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[51]  Nadine Gobron,et al.  Using 1-D models to interpret the reflectance anisotropy of 3-D canopy targets: issues and caveats , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[52]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[53]  Hideki Kobayashi,et al.  RAMI4PILPS: An intercomparison of formulations for the partitioning of solar radiation in land surface models , 2011 .

[54]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Climate impacts of bioenergy: Inclusion of carbon cycle and albedo dynamics in life cycle impact assessment , 2012 .

[55]  Jörg Trentmann,et al.  Remote sensing of solar surface radiation for climate monitoring — the CM-SAF retrieval in international comparison , 2012 .

[56]  Jan-Philip M. Witte,et al.  Going beyond limitations of plant functional types when predicting global ecosystem–atmosphere fluxes: exploring the merits of traits‐based approaches , 2012 .

[57]  Annette Hammer,et al.  A New Algorithm for the Satellite-Based Retrieval of Solar Surface Irradiance in Spectral Bands , 2012, Remote. Sens..

[58]  Philip Lewis,et al.  The fourth radiation transfer model intercomparison (RAMI‐IV): Proficiency testing of canopy reflectance models with ISO‐13528 , 2013 .

[59]  N. Gobron,et al.  Synergy between 1‐D and 3‐D radiation transfer models to retrieve vegetation canopy properties from remote sensing data , 2004 .

[60]  Alexander Loew,et al.  Evaluation of vegetation cover and land‐surface albedo in MPI‐ESM CMIP5 simulations , 2013 .

[61]  Jing M. Chen,et al.  Evaluation of leaf-to-canopy upscaling methodologies against carbon flux data in North America , 2012 .

[62]  P. Sellers Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and transpiration , 1985 .

[63]  Alexander Loew,et al.  Combined evaluation of MPI‐ESM land surface water and energy fluxes , 2012 .

[64]  S. Running,et al.  Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data , 2002 .

[65]  Nadine Gobron,et al.  Exploiting the MODIS albedos with the Two-stream Inversion Package (JRC-TIP): 1. Effective leaf area index, vegetation, and soil properties , 2011 .

[66]  N. Gobron,et al.  A semidiscrete model for the scattering of light by vegetation , 1997 .

[67]  Stephen Sitch,et al.  Dynamic global vegetation modelling: quantifying terrestrial ecosystem responses to large-scale environmental change , 2007 .

[68]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Plant-driven variation in decomposition rates improves projections of global litter stock distribution. , 2011 .

[69]  Kai Zhang,et al.  MAC‐v1: A new global aerosol climatology for climate studies , 2013 .

[70]  Josef Cihlar,et al.  New calculation methods of diurnal distribution of solar radiation and its interception by canopy over complex terrain , 2002 .

[71]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Effect of Anthropogenic Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes on Climate and Land Carbon Storage in CMIP5 Projections for the Twenty-First Century , 2013 .

[72]  S. Los,et al.  A comprehensive set of benchmark tests for a land surface model of simultaneous fluxes of water and carbon at both the global and seasonal scale , 2010 .

[73]  Mark A. Friedl,et al.  Parameterization of shortwave radiation fluxes for nonuniform vegetation canopies in land surface models , 2001 .

[74]  Thomas Raddatz,et al.  Strength of forest-albedo feedback in mid-Holocene climate simulations , 2011 .

[75]  B. Stevens,et al.  The Atmospheric Component of the MPI-M Earth 1 System Model : ECHAM 6 2 , 2012 .

[76]  Jean-Luc Widlowski,et al.  Third Radiation Transfer Model Intercomparison (RAMI) exercise: Documenting progress in canopy reflectance models , 2007 .

[77]  S. Higgins,et al.  TRY – a global database of plant traits , 2011, Global Change Biology.

[78]  A. Henderson‐sellers,et al.  A global archive of land cover and soils data for use in general circulation climate models , 1985 .

[79]  Nadine Gobron,et al.  Radiation transfer model intercomparison (RAMI) exercise , 2001 .

[80]  J. Goudriaan,et al.  SEPARATING THE DIFFUSE AND DIRECT COMPONENT OF GLOBAL RADIATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MODELING CANOPY PHOTOSYNTHESIS PART I. COMPONENTS OF INCOMING RADIATION , 1986 .

[81]  S. Díaz,et al.  Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change , 1997 .

[82]  Mathias Disney,et al.  Monte Carlo ray tracing in optical canopy reflectance modelling , 2000 .

[83]  David R. Doelling,et al.  Advances in Understanding Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Variability from Satellite Observations , 2012, Surveys in Geophysics.

[84]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Representation of natural and anthropogenic land cover change in MPI‐ESM , 2013 .

[85]  Daniel S. Goll,et al.  Nutrient limitation reduces land carbon uptake in simulations with a model of combined carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling , 2012 .